looking for feedback on choosing a 70-200 for weddings.

[notoriouslightning]

Hi all,
So things are picking up with the weddings and I am thinking I need a 70-200 sooner than later. As of now I am working with a 5d mark 3, back up rebel, 17-40L,24-70 2.8L II, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2.8L, and a 600 EX-RT. What I have found over the last few weddings is that I need a little more reach. Usually I shoot small wedding so no problem, but things are growing. Due to the recent purchase of the new 24-70, money is tight. I was thinking about saving for the canon 2.8 non IS or 4IS as they are both within reach, thoughts? If it helps, I feel I have a pretty steady hand and I love shallow DOF. Based on this I was thinking the 2.8 non IS would be best?

 

[Menace]

If it helps, I feel I have a pretty steady hand and I love shallow DOF.

If thats the case do get the 2.8.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

The 2,8 IS is expensive.
I had the non IS, now I have the 2,8 IS II: you can´t imagine, how much you are trembling, and the scene, although with humans, is steady.
Expensive. But I love using it.
Or use a monopd.

 

[Hannes]

For weddings I'd rather buy the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS than getting the non stabilised canon 2.8, they are similar price but stabilisation helps a lot. I took a non stabilised sigma to a friends wedding (black lens and not quite as intimidating) and a lot of shot came out blurry due to camera shake. If people are sitting still you can easily get sharp shots at 1/50th but it'll be impossible to handhold the non-stabilised lens without blur. Obviously you can crank up the ISO on the 5DIII but you won't have that luxury if you put it on the rebel. It does take a small IQ and AF hit compared to the canon but for weddings it'll be good enough. Putting it on the rebel works but it isn't great as the balance is completely off, a lens that size will also suck a lot of juice out of the small rebel batteries.

 

[Ruined]

Honestly,
I would save up for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM, and if you need a zoom now but cant afford the former buy a 70-300 F/4-5.6L.

Reason? You really want a 70-200 with f/2.8 *and* IS for weddings. The combination of low light, long focal length, and inability to use flash at times means 70-200 + F/2.8 + IS for best results. You will likely be dissatisfied in the long run with anything less for weddings.

HOWEVER, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a HUGE heavy lens. It is good to have something a little lighter and smaller for things besides weddings. So if you buy the 70-300 f/4-5.6L now, it will give you a bit more reach and will still be a useful lens to keep when you inevitably buy a 70-200 f/2.8 IS in the future. If you buy a non-IS 70-200 or an f/4 version, you would probably end up not using it once you got the f/2.8 IS as it is not different enough - non-IS 70-200 is just as big and heavy, while f/4 version is really long and not as portable as the 70-300L - and neither 70-200 has the reach of the 70-300L, which you might need at some point!

So in summary, I'd:
* Save for 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
* Buy 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS in meantime, and then keep it as a more portable/better reach alternative once you inevitably buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

 

[BoneDoc]

When I was trying to decide I got both the Mk II And the Tamron 70-200. I was prepared to Pay the premium for the Mk II, but I ended up keeping the Tamron. The iq is nearly identical, and whatever unsharp photos I took was due to technique. I got equally good shots with either. At 1400 vs 2200, I think Tamron wins. But if I were able to get the Mk II at 1900, I might have to think twice

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When I was trying to decide I got both the Mk II And the Tamron 70-200. I was prepared to Pay the premium for the Mk II, but I ended up keeping the Tamron. The iq is nearly identical, and whatever unsharp photos I took was due to technique. I got equally good shots with either. At 1400 vs 2200, I think Tamron wins. But if I were able to get the Mk II at 1900, I might have to think twice

I expect to see the MK II at 1600-1700 before Christmas, its already been on flash sales for $1800.

However, if the Tamron AF works for you, and you are happy with it, that's all that counts.


I'm not sure why you say they are close IQ wise. Edges are much poorer, and the center is poorer as well.

 

[RomainF]

I've owned the Sigma 70-200 2.8 IS, the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I and finally the Canon 70-200 2.8 II.
About my copies, from de "worst" to the best :
-Canon 1
-Sigma
-Canon 2

Ma Sigma was actually better than the first Canon version. And the 70-200 II is the best one overall. But not that much. It ain't night and day. It will never ever change your pictures getting version I or II....differences are not that huge...
Is is more about personal satisfaction about owning the "best ever".
The Canon II is better as i spend less time on my computer, sharpening and contrasting a bit some part of the pictures. Pictures are great straight out of the body. I insist, i actually must not anymore sharpen them. But, once you post-processed them, differences between these lenses are not that impressing.

Moreover, I regret the Sigma because of the black outfit and cause zoom ring and focus ring are inverted as on the Canons. The zoom one is on the front of the lens. Wich, i find, is really more confortable and stable.
I also consider that Sigma stabilization is faster than the Canon one...


If you wanna be proud of your "white lens", get a Canon.
If you want the "best of the best", get the Canon II.
If you want a good 70-200 2.8 IS but you're a bit cheap, get the Sigma, i'll perfectly make the job.

But don't get an f/4 or an f/2.8 non-IS. If you're a bit short, sell your 50 1.4 or wait. But that would be sad to get an f/4 or f/2.8 nonIS if you know that you'll sell it in some months to upgrade. You'll spend a lot of time looking for the best deal, you'll spend time selling your lens and you'll spend time -again- looking for the best deal on the 2.8 IS.

Since i've my Canon II, i don't shoot better pictures and IQ don't look "that" better, no one except me -and photographers friends- could tell the difference.
However, once you have the 2.8 IS II, you'll never be able anymore to accuse the gear when you miss a shot, haha.

70-300 is so dark....f/5.6...seriously.....? I often find the 2.8 zoom lenses to be so dark when you use to shoot with f/1.2-1.4-1.8 primes...i don't even imagine having to bother with an f/5.6 one. Moreover, fixed aperture are definitely easier to shoot..


The "ego" factor is important, you know it. Self-confidence is a key for good shots. Seduction/charming is the key for great-portraits. These elements are linked. So, if a part of your self-confidence needs the white lens, get it. I suppose that it always sucks for you ego to meet some guest who boasts about having better gear than you when shooting a wedding.
On the other hand, your IQ needs 2.8 and IS to get the best shots too.

To conclude, i wouldn't even consider an f/4 or non-IS lens. Sigma must be considered if you're a bit short on the budget. Tamron might be too but i d'ont know it.
That's only my personal opinion. I give it here, now you do whatever you want.

Wish you good shots.

 

[bobby samat]

i wouldn't even hesitate man. get yourself a 70-200 2.8. there have been so many times where 2.8 will give me a shutter speed i can work with in low light. f/4 doesn't cut it, for me at least.

the original 70-200 2.8 has been my favorite lens for a long time. i've used it for basketball, birds, portraits, weddings. the list goes on. i've used it on a 5d1, 5d3 & 1d4. it was exceptional on all three bodies.

i've shot at 1/50 at 200mm at 2.8 and still got keepers. so while IS is nice, it isn't necessary the majority of the time.

i recently just purchased the IS model, so i've been fortunate enough to be able to play with both simultaneously and make my own conclusions. the 70-200 II IS is, without a doubt, a serious upgrade. the image quality is better, the blur is even more beautiful and it focuses noticeably faster than the original. it's also a bit heavier and has a nicer focus ring.

my first shots with the new lens in IS mode were after dark in a dimly lit room of my chocolate lab.. i took two pictures at 1/4 at 200mm. one was blurry, one was tack sharp. i wouldn't have believed anyone if they had shown me the picture and told me a quarter of a second at 200mm.

so, if you have the money or are going to be making money with your work, i would go with the new one. if you don't have excess expendable income but need a 70-200 2.8, the original won't let you down. you can always upgrade if you find you need the IS.

 

[BoneDoc]

If you were using this for work, then I would not hesitate getting the MkII. Simply put, having a white lens would further bolster your "street cred" with your clients, or future clients. I got the Tamron, because I use it more for travel, and would like to avoid the conspicuous white lens look .

We all can argue about charts, but for those who has shoot both back to back, the IQ is very similar / nearly identical. DXO FWIW even rates the Tamron slightly higher.

 

[notoriouslightning]

Thanks for the replies. I think I will just try and save for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I know in the long run it will be what I want to end up with regardless. I also don't have another wedding until early January some maybe my rebate from the 24-70 will be in by then. After this guy I should be set for some time. It would be great if it went down a little more in price just before christmas, fingers crossed.

 

[silvestography]

If you can't afford the canon v2, get the Tamron VC. Besides lesser build, a bit more vignetting and very slightly slower AF, you won't notice a significant difference (especially on IQ). It's not much more expensive than the canon non-IS, much better, and has VC (and Tamron's VC is really quite good - I have their 24-70 and it works like a charm).

 

[RandyAC]

I read in the manual for 5D3 that the 2.8 lens can take advantage of the dual-cross focus points, while the f4 lenses can't. Is that significant for weddings?

 

[RomainF]

Thanks for the replies. I think I will just try and save for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I know in the long run it will be what I want to end up with regardless. I also don't have another wedding until early January some maybe my rebate from the 24-70 will be in by then. After this guy I should be set for some time. It would be great if it went down a little more in price just before christmas, fingers crossed.

I think that's the best choice you can make.
I've had good-but-not-great gear for years. Good enough to have the job done, but not great enough to fully satisfy myself. And that's a headlock. You can't imagine how peaceful minded i am since i got my new body and lenses version II. I don't have to think about money and trading my gear anymore. I've the best i can get from today camera makers and this is it. I d'ont have no worry anymore, no wondering anymore (is the Sigma version really that worst compared to the Canon....? Would have i missed that picture i had the latest version II...?) ...and that's the best thing you can get.

I have had Sigma lenses. On one hand they were optically great, even compared to my Canon ones, but on the other hand, they were a nightmare to sell...i've lost so much money buying third-party lenses new and selling them to get the Canon one...
Moreover, the customer service is so much better from Canon. If you have enough expensive gear, you can pretend to the CPS which lend you a lens when yours need to be serviced. With Sigma or Tamron, you'll have to spend a dozen days or 3 weeks without your gear. Which is impossible when you must have it to work and make a living out of your pictures...
When my stabilization broke down -for absolutely no reasons- on my Sigma 70-200 2.8 (just a month after the guaranty was over...) they told me that i'll have to spend about 300/350$ and wait 3 weeks to get it fixed. I walked out of the shop and directly went to the Canon Pro center to buy the 70-200 version II. I can't even sell my Sigma for about 1/3 of the price i paid when it was just released...it remains on a shelf at home waiting for someone to be interested to buy it... So that's why i said "Third party ? NEVER again".

 

[greger]

I have the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens and can safely say to buy the newer 70-200 2.8 IS USM vs II lens. I think everyone responding to your post recommends that lens for weddings. I did a google "The Canon Wedding Lens" because I read somewhere that vs I was called the Wedding Lens. Maybe it was vs I, but vs II blows it out of the water, from what I've read. I want this vs II lens but can't talk the wife into it as I have the f4 lens. I may get the 16-35 2.8 someday. GoodLuck on your decision.

 

[Vossie]

I would save for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Although I also love the 135L (which is half the price), the 70-200 will give you more versatility. During receptions or ceremonies you can not always move around without constraints, a good zoom allows you to capture more moments that could have been gone if you would have to move into position first. As said by others, the IQ of the 70-200 II is great, only donwsides are price, weight and the fact that is quite conspicuous.

 

[TrabimanUK]

My wife uses the 70-200 IS II an a 24-70 2.8 MK1 for her wedding photography. The 70-200 is great for low light (ok, not as good as a f1.2), but moreover allows for versatility and lfexibility with the zoon. It also makes a great "paparazzi" lens, as you can catch people unawares and get great natural reportage shots as the day goes on, or for the long aisle in big churches. If you can get a MK1 version of the 70-200IS for a reasonable proce and play with that before forking out for the big beast, it'll give you a feel for what the art of the possible is with the lens.

Yes, it is heavy, but it is dead good too!

 

[RLPhoto]

I don't shoot most weddings with a 70-200 but when I do, I use the 70-200 IS II.

Save up for the version 2, and you'll want for nothing.

 

[Menace]

My wife uses the 70-200 IS II an a 24-70 2.8 MK1 for her wedding photography. The 70-200 is great for low light (ok, not as good as a f1.2), but moreover allows for versatility and lfexibility with the zoon. It also makes a great "paparazzi" lens, as you can catch people unawares and get great natural reportage shots as the day goes on, or for the long aisle in big churches. If you can get a MK1 version of the 70-200IS for a reasonable proce and play with that before forking out for the big beast, it'll give you a feel for what the art of the possible is with the lens.

Yes, it is heavy, but it is dead good too!

+1 for adding a fast prime to kit ;D

 

[notoriouslightning]

So I am sold, guess in getting the 70-20 is II. The only thing that stinks is I would love to use the rebate from my 24-70 I mailed in a few weeks ago, but doubt it will be here in time for the next wedding. As for the mention of the primes, I love my 100mm L, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8, but really need some more reach. After this guy I think I will be set for some time. Any of you have any feedback on the turnaround for the mail-in rebates from canon?